The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Shock and Awe In Gaza
On the second day of Israel's aerial Blitz on Hamas' military infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, it seems clear that the Islamic fundamentalist organization is severely shocked by the massive onslaught.

Proverbs 24:17 tells us:  "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls." As a soldier, I can hardly rejoice on the horrifying images of scores of uniformed policemen, lying dead and badly wounded in the Gaza police compound, which were aired by Al-Jazeera live from the scene.

Details of this attack have not been officially released, but it's almost certain that this particular target was part of the Israel Defense Forces "target bank" prepared long in advance, based on highly accurate intelligence and pre-programmed on fighter mission computers before the strike.

Whether this particular target was under real-time surveillance from UAV or satellite is not known. Normally the presence of a mass parade would have been a consideration in holding back on an attack. There exists of course the possibility that the Israeli leadership wished to send a "shock and awe" message to Hamas right at the opening of the attack - to set new rules to the game that has been so ruthlessly played for years by Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalists.

If the latter was part of the warfighting directive by political decision-makers, they must have achieved their goal, because the  Hamas leadership has apparently gone into deep underground hiding, leaving their soldiers to fight for their lives.

The Israeli blitz has already destroyed a large part of Hamas' painfully assembled arsenal. Over a hundred secret weapons caches and carefully camouflaged subterranean rocket launching sites have been identified by intelligence and eliminated, using sophisticated hyper-spectral sensor and electro-optic detection systems.


blog post photo
Hamas subterranean rocket launch site destroyed

Although Israel's intelligence community estimates that Hamas must have hundreds of Qassam and Grad rockets still stacked away, its launching capability seems to have been severely degraded.

In an attempt to signal that it still had fight left, Hamas on Sunday made the first use of the 122mm, 42km-range Grad rocket (recently smuggled in from Iran) to fire into an area near Israel's major seaport of Ashdod.

With two reserve brigades having been called up already to bolster the substantial land forces deployed in jump-off positions near the border, the IDF is awaiting orders to enter, should a ground strike become necessary.


blog post photo
Hamas military post in downtown Gaza before destruction

But meanwhile the air force appears to be conducting a textbook campaign. It seems that the air strikes are highly accurate and hit percentage is exceptionally high, with surprisingly minor collateral damage. This is based on painstaking intelligence gathering work over many months. As Al Jazeera is present on the spot, there is no doubt that, should there be civilian casualties, or worse, dead children to portray, these would have been on every TV screen by now.

The air force's latest strike was particularily effective. Sunday afternoon, no less than forty subterranean tunnels were destroyed in a few minutes, by JDAM guided bombs, along the so-called Philadelphi route on the Rafah-Egyptian border.

Shrewdly exploiting the carnage created, Hamas bulldozers toppled the Egyptian border fence and masses of Gazaeans streamed into Sinai, ignoring the Egyptian armored cars desperately trying to ward them off.

It now remains to be seen whether Hamas will recover from the shock and respond with a mass bombardment on Israeli territory, trying to cause as many casualties as possible, which would inevitably result in a land incursion into the Gaza Strip proper. Then the real war will start. One should hope that both sides will come to their senses and find ways back to a new more effective tahdiya  (ceasefire) in order to avert further bloodshed.

Tags: ar99idfhamasgaza
Email this post
User Image
Phyzz wrote:
As always Mr. Eschel, I am troubled by the tone of your post. Let me try to be specific. Please excuse my english.

Your first paragraph states "it seems clear [...]". A perfectly neutral journalism piece would have mentioned some of the people who share the feeling you report. I of course acknowledge that no post is perfect.

Your second paragraph states your opinion, which I respect. I am not a soldier, but as any human being I too feel sorrow for these tragedies that occur in wars.

Your third paragraph seems strictly factual at first glance but I have to point out the use of the adjective "highly accurate" to describe the intelligence the IDF has on its targets. This is clearly subjective.

Your fourth paragraph then ends with the association of Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism, and your statement that Hamas has "played ruthlessly" a "game" for years (I use your own words). I must repeat that I am not an expert in any of those subjects. These word association are clearly not objective assesments of the situation but are based on feelings and personal opinions.

The fifth paragraph finishes in the same tone by saying that "Hamas leadership [is] leaving their soldiers to fight for their lives". This suggests that the Hamas leadership is made of cowards and their soldiers are suicidal.

Jumping right to the tenth paragraph, the tone of your post changes radically as you describe a "textbook campaign" by the Israeli Air Force. You state that strikes are "highly accurate and hit percentage is exceptionally high, with surprisingly minor collateral damage". Notice the contrast to the lexical fields used describing the Hamas leadership going "into deep underground hiding" while the statistics about IDF air strikes are all high. This struck me quite hard but not as much as the last sentence of the paragraph: "As Al Jazeera is present on the spot, there is no doubt that, should there be civilian casualties, or worse, dead children to portray, these would have been on every TV screen by now". I find your choice of words very very disturbing: your feeling of anger towards the biased reporting of Al Jazeera is crystal clear. You seem to think that they over-exagerate the deaths of civilian (which children or policemen are part of).

I skip over the remaining paragraphs to note that your post ends on a very different thought: "one should hope that both sides will come to their senses and find ways [...] to avert further bloodshed". The feeling here is clearly more soothing and against violence.

As a conclusion, I have to ask you if you are aware that this piece of journalism has some characteristics of propaganda (see wikipedia's entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda ) notably by giving "loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response" (I quote wikipedia). I completly acknowledge that the subject is sensitive because a lot of hatred and anger exists between parties, and I suspect that in this stressful environment it is very hard to not express oneself with one-sidedness.

Let me stress that I do not challenge your sources, contest the objectiveness of the verified facts that you state, nor deny you the right to express your opinion.
12/29/2008 8:03 AM CST
User Image
Phyzz wrote:
As I read again the comments to a previous post of Mr. Eschel ("IDF Targets the Hamastan Army", 12/27/2008 5:59 AM CST) which also started a discussion about impartiality in journalism and in human relations as a whole, I realize that Obamanite and Solomon have a valid point of view: "Objectivity is [...] elusive" (from Obamanite's comment).

Yet I argue that the difference between propaganda (I do not refer to Mr. Eschel's posts specifically here) and opinion pieces (which is what a blog is about) is that the latter is clearly labeled as such while the former seeks massive dissemination to influence readers.

I do not think that Ares is a place where writers seek to influence people, but to present views of some respected and recognized specialized journalists on subjects of interest to them (and to us since we read them and listen to them regularly).
12/29/2008 10:26 AM CST
User Image
Obamanite wrote:
Phyzz - Your comments are undoubtedly well-reasoned and you make some interesting points. I find that in a democratic society that embraces free speech and one has access to a multiplicity of sources, the scourge of propaganda is less of a concern than is the case with state-sponsored media in totalitarian regimes where there is but one source of information for the vast majority of the non-dissident population. As such, in the case of unfettered access to the Internet such as I enjoy, the burden or responsibility to filter information rests not with state authorities but with the reader himself. That is, consider the source. It is obvious that Mr. Eshel's post is reflective of a point of view that is favorable toward Israel and antagonistic toward Hamas. Once the reader understands this, he can digest the content of his piece for what it is, a mix of fact, analysis and opinion that does not quite rise to the level of propaganda, especially since our access to other sources is, as I said, unfettered, and those who frequent this site are presumably better educated about this on-going conflict than the general population and are therefore expected to have developed the critical faculty necessary to know the difference between fact, analysis and opinion. Read, for instance, Mr. Sweetman's posts regarding a comparatively benign subject like the F-35 JSF. While employing factual evidence, his posts are riddled with strongly held opinions which often are downright sarcastic, snide and derisive of the program in question. Because he is writing about a subject few will kill over, such tactics are largely dismissed for what they are - gratuitously sensationalistic - but obviously, in the case of a post such as Mr. Eshel's, which does involve issues people are killing and dying over even as I write this, Mr. Eshel's comparatively tame opinion-mongering is more likely to raise eyebrows than Mr. Sweetman's self-aggrandizing diatribes.
12/29/2008 11:13 AM CST
User Image
Thought I would just make a brief comment here as AviationWeek.com web managing editor. We have a variety of content posted in our blogs by various AvWeek.com editors, and a variety of comments attached to them. I haven't read every single post by Eshel, but this one falls well within the bounds of the kind of informed commentary we encourage. That includes calling Hamas an "Islamic fundamentalist" organization--that's merely descriptive--and I don't think many who watch Al Jazeera would quibble with Eshel's prediction of what they would air.

That being said, Phyzz, your comments are also well within the bounds of the conversations we want here.
12/29/2008 11:31 AM CST
User Image
You too Obamanite--we were writing at the same time.
12/29/2008 11:33 AM CST
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Might I reinforce Chris' comments? As the editor on duty over the weekend in temporary Ares HQ (a Panera on Duke Street) I assessed David Eshel's post as having a balance of news and informed opinion. That's what the blog is for. Between AvWeek and DTI, we have a lot of straight news reporting.
12/29/2008 1:39 PM CST
User Image
Starviking wrote:
I have some problems with David's reporting. This in particular is very propagandistic (and logically poor):

"Shrewdly exploiting the carnage created, Hamas bulldozers toppled the Egyptian border fence and masses of Gazaeans streamed into Sinai, ignoring the Egyptian armored cars desperately trying to ward them off."

The act of Gazas trying to flee a war zone gets turned into another hit against Hamas? Poor.

This also seems to be hyping the threat of Hamas (and the other unassociated terrorist organisation operating in Gaza):

"It now remains to be seen whether Hamas will recover from the shock and respond with a mass bombardment on Israeli territory, trying to cause as many casualties as possible..."

As far as I am aware the Palestinian rockets are pretty poor as far as accuracy goes, though en-masse or over a period of time they have killed innocent civilians in Israel. David is hyping the rockets into a monstrous threat - and that they do not deserve.

I find David's photo of the aftermath of an attack on an underground missile site that was located in a residential area interesting - but some text on the matter would be appreciated.

Finally, as regard the title of the piece, I'll note that 'Shock and Awe' was not particularly effective in Iraq - what makes Israel think that it will work in Gaza? I don't recall any particular savvy moves by the Israeli government (or the Palestinians for fairness) since the Oslo accords were buried - what makes them think they've got a solution now?
12/29/2008 10:01 PM CST
User Image
Solomon wrote:
nothing like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to stir up the emotions;))
12/29/2008 11:33 PM CST
User Image
Solomon wrote:
though en-masse or over a period of time they have killed innocent civilians in Israel. David is hyping the rockets into a monstrous threat - and that they do not deserve.

sorry but that's the craziest statement ever made on these boards.
12/29/2008 11:41 PM CST
User Image
Starviking wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion Solomon, but at most these rockets kill one or two people if they hit a 'target'. David's "trying to cause as many casualties as possible" counts as hype in my book, especially considering the inaccuracy inherent in their design.
12/30/2008 2:34 AM CST
1 2 >> Last
Most Recent Tags
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos